Why not put the BTL's above the MPI layer? This would allow us to
implement an "mpi" BTL that uses MPI as a transport:

shell$ mpirun --mca btl mpi,self ...

;-)

On Dec 3, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:

> I managed to execute the modex-less changes pretty much without
> introducing additional ORTE dependencies into the BTL's, though
> there may be some additions as we look a the other BTLs that I
> didn't address. So hopefully that won't contribute too much to the
> issue here.
>
> At the moment, I don't think it matters where notifier sits - it
> might be able to move to OPAL. Only catch will be if some notifier
> component requires communications. I'm thinking of FTB, for example,
> and our own local monitoring program that may require TCP messaging.
> We don't currently have anything in OPAL that would support an OPAL
> level messaging system, though perhaps that could be resolved.
>
> We also have dependencies where the BTL's will call orte_ess to find
> out what node another proc is on, the node local rank of that proc,
> etc. Those dependencies are likely to grow after the Dec meeting
> (see wiki for that agenda item), and definitely cannot be moved to
> OPAL.
>
> However, note that Rich stated the BTL's were -not- moving to OPAL.
> This begs the question: where -are- they going? Into their own
> layer? Will that layer be somewhere in-between OMPI and ORTE (in
> which case, the ORTE dependencies are moot)?
>
> I note that the wiki page doesn't address any of these questions,
> which is understandable if things are just getting underway. But it
> does sound like this is going to take some thought to ensure we
> don't paint ourselves into a corner.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I see lots of notifier calls being added to the BTLs (and
>> elsewhere throughout the OMPI code base) over time...
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Tim Mattox wrote:
>>
>>> The BTLs might have added calls to the notifier framework in their
>>> error paths.
>>> The notifier framework is currently in the ORTE layer... not sure
>>> if we could
>>> move it down to OPAL. Ralph, any thoughts on that?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Richard Graham
>>> <rlgraham_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> George told me about what he is doing, so no changes would be
>>>> committed
>>>> until George has his changes in.
>>>>
>>>> Are there other changes to the btl's that we should be aware of ?
>>>>
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/3/08 11:47 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Terry,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm involved [at some degree] in both efforts and I can confirm
>>>>> these
>>>>> two efforts will not affect each other in any bad way.
>>>>>
>>>>> george.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 11:42 , Terry Dontje wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have any *strong* objections. However, I know that Eugene
>>>>>> and George B have been working on some Fastpath code changes
>>>>>> that we
>>>>>> should make sure neither project obliterates the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --td
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Now that 1.3 will be released, we would like to go ahead with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> plan to move the btl¹s out of the MPI layer. Greg Koenig who is
>>>>>>> doing most of the work has started a wiki page with details on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> plans. Right now details are sketchy, as Greg is digging through
>>>>>>> the code, and has only hand written notes on data structures
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> need to be moved, include files that are not needed, etc. The
>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>> is at:
>>>>>>> _https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/BTLExtraction_
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first three steps basically only involve code motion, moving
>>>>>>> items such as ompi_list, and renaming them, moving where the
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> is actually located in the repository, and the like. For these
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> do not plan to put out a formal RFC, but comments are very
>>>>>>> welcome,
>>>>>>> and any hands that are willing to help with this are even more
>>>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last phase where the btl¹s are made dependent on OPAL, and
>>>>>>> supporting libraries such as mpools I expect will be disruptive,
>>>>>>> and will definitely require an RFC, and will also be a longer
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please send comments,
>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Mattox, Ph.D. - http://homepage.mac.com/tmattox/>>> tmattox_at_[hidden] || timattox_at_[hidden]
>>> I'm a bright... http://www.the-brights.net/>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> Cisco Systems
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel